On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 13:06, Alvin Thompson wrote:
> the whole concept of SVN is to provide a replacement for CVS which
> addresses its major limitations. as this list has shown, this *is* a
> major limitation.
I do not agree that "this list" has shown having a .svn directory to be
a major limitation. Perhaps for you and a small (but vocal) minority,
but not for the majority of the list.
> we have the capability to address this without
> impacting the feature set. why not address it? "because it's a bigger
> change than i feel like doing" is not a valid answer.
How about "I have neither the time nor the inclination to fix this since
it works just fine for me."
It's your itch, *you* scratch it.
> but even if it were difficult, wouldn't it make more sense to modify SVN
> to play well with other programs than to modify every other program out
> there to play well with SVN? the whole point is to have SVN universally
> accepted. that acceptance would come easier if SVN actually worked with
> the most popular IDE on the planet.
And which IDE would that be? Please define "actually worked". As far
as I know, Subversion works with a whole truckload of IDEs.
> one of these days when i'm not so lazy i'll look at the code. but i
> imagine the impact would be negligible once you obtained a different
> stream. if this is not so, you probably need to do a better job of
> abstracting that stuff, anyway, since SVN may need to run on something
> other than a regular file system sometime in the near future (hint, hint
> ;) .
Again, patches welcome.
-Fitz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Mar 8 20:13:43 2004